What God Thinks About Modern Western Society

    We have been considering some of the differences between Christianity and Islam, and have noted that the concept of jihad is rooted both in the Quran and Islamic history. But does that make Western society superior to the Islamic world? What does God think about us?
    Atheists sometimes advance what is known as the moral argument against the Bible: the Bible cannot possibly be taken seriously as a moral guide because it shocks and offends our sensibilities. The critics who advance this argument will point to certain episodes, mostly contained in the Old Testament, such as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac, the Israelites being told to wipe out the Canaanites, the toleration of slavery, and the treatment of women generally. The argument is then made that the Bible reflects the barbaric standards of a primitive society, and therefore cannot be taken seriously today.
    The criticism, however, masks a fatal weakness on the part of the critic. In order to sit in judgment on the Bible, one must have a standard external to the Bible by which to judge it. But what is the standard, and where does it come from? When pressed the critic is generally forced to admit that there is no standard – most modern secular critics of the Bible do not admit the existence of moral absolutes. In their view there is no universally binding moral code. Morality is culturally relative.
    But if morality is culturally relative, how can someone in one culture sit in judgment on another culture? He is inevitably applying the culturally relative standards of his own, modern, Western society on others. One might ask, however, how a modern society that could drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population during World War II could sit in judgment of an ancient moral code that contains such quaint aphorisms as "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," or how a society that can support a multi-billion dollar sex industry can criticize the way women were treated in the Bible, but such is the arrogance of modern Western (politically correct) society.

Modern Progress

    But beyond that we ask the fundamental question: should we judge God by our standards, or should we judge ourselves by His? Exactly who or what determines right and wrong in the first place? Once it is conceded that God exists, the answer is obvious. If God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge, His will is normative. His opinion is the only one that counts. It is for us to comply with His standards.
    In point of fact God has told us what He thinks of us. In Romans 1:18-32 we have a scathing critique of a society in deep moral decline – and it is an apt description of us.
    The apostle Paul is writing to the early Christian church in the city of Rome. He had never been there before, and he was describing to the Roman Christians his mission and his message. In setting the stage for his exposition of the Christian gospel he records his impressions of Graeco-Roman society. It is a remarkable piece of psychological insight.
    Interestingly, in his analysis of human society he traces the moral decline to a form of secularism. "The wrath of God," he says, "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (Rom. 1:18; NKJV). "Ungodliness" is the failure, or perhaps we should say, the refusal to acknowledge God. "Unrighteousness" is the failure to live by His laws. What makes this a crime in God's sight? The fact that God is our Creator and we owe everything to Him. We are surrounded by evidence in nature of God's wisdom and power, and our conscience bears witness to His existence as well. Hence our refusal to acknowledge His is nothing less that a species of moral rebellion against our Creator. It is the clenched fist of human defiance, and if affects our whole way of looking at reality. They "became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . ." (vv. 21,22).
    And how does God respond to this? "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves" (v. 24). As hard as it may seem to believe, God sometimes abandons us to our own lusts. People sometimes say that they see no evidence of God at work in the world today, and up to a point they are absolutely right. God is largely absent from our world, and for good reason. When we ignore Him, when we systematically exclude Him from our thinking and our lives, we fall under His judgment. He leaves us to our own devices.
    The "sexual revolution" is a symptom of this abandonment by God, and the prevalence of homosexuality is specifically mentioned as a particularly egregious example of this. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (vv. 26,27). It is a picture of a society sunk in moral degeneracy.
    The terminal stage of social and moral decline is marked by a wide range of compulsive, anti-social and self-destructive behavior. And not only is the behavior indulged in, it is openly condoned. " . . . who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (v. 32). It has become a truly godless society.
    It is not hard to see the parallels with modern western society. We have witnessed the radical secularization of our culture, and with it the breakdown of public morality. We have become sexually permissive, and marriage has largely become a meaningless institution. A whole generation of children is being reared in dysfunctional one-parent households. Yet even as we careen toward the precipice of social disintegration, we lack the presence of mind to turn around. We have become a morally bankrupt society bent on self-destruction.
    "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting . . . " (v. 28).

For a fascinating article by Rod Dreher of The American Conservative on gay marriage and the sexual revolution, see Sex After Christianity

God’s Portrait of Modern Society

   

Dore: Moses Breaking the Tables of the Law

 We have been discussing the current debate about "gay marriage" and the two cases surrounding the issue now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The attorneys opposing gay marriage are required to present a secular argument against the idea, which amounts to a pragmatic argument that gay marriage is somehow harmful to American society. But there is a deeper issue to all of this as well. As human beings we must also ask the ultimate question, what does our Creator think about all of this?
    The easy answer is that "God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our life," as one famous religious tract once put it, and in a sense that is perfectly correct. But the whole truth is more complicated than that. God loves us, but He is also angry with us. Why, you ask? Because we have rebelled against Him.
    The apostle Paul gives us a vivid portrait of human society in Romans 1:18-32. Here Paul begins by stating that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (v. 18: NKJV) Here we are told that God's anger is directed against two things: "ungodliness" and "unrighteousness." The translation "ungodliness" is a little misleading. The Greek word actually means a lack of piety or reverence. It is the refusal to acknowledge God and honor Him. "Unrighteousness" is the unwillingness to do what is right, to conform our lives to God's laws. In modern terms what Paul is describing here is nothing less than secularism.
    Paul goes on to describe a civilization in decline. Significantly it all begins with the refusal to acknowledge the true God. Paul points out that people are surrounded by the evidence of God's existence (vv. 19,20), but that in spite of this they "did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful" (v. 21). The result was a kind of intellectual impairment. They "became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." This, in a word, is the story of Western philosophy from the 17^th Century onward.
    And where does it all lead? The answer is terrifying: "Therefore God also gave them up . . ." (v. 24). He gave them up to their natural inclination to do evil, and especially to sexual immorality, including rampant homosexuality (vv. 26,27).
    The end result of sexual license, then as now, was social disintegration. God "gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (v. 28). People were filled with every kind of wickedness and iniquity. They were full of envy, violence, strife and deceit. They hated God, and soon they hated each other. They lacked discernment, integrity, and even natural affection. They had become implacable and unmerciful (vv. 29-31).
    Does all of this sound familiar? It should. Paul could very well have been describing us. In some ways the decisive turning point for us was the Theory of Evolution, which, in turn, led to the secularization of society as a whole. If there is no such thing as Intelligent Design, then there are no such things as universal truths. Social experimentation then follows. Tragically, in the midst of all the intellectual and social change of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries the major Protestant denominations caved into the new modes of thought and largely abandoned the central message of Christianity, the gospel of redemption in Christ Jesus. In society in general there was an initial spasm of licentiousness in the "Roaring Twenties," tempered somewhat by the hard times of the Great Depression and World War II. But then came the '60's, and the standards of public morality began to crumble. We have now become the picture of depravity described by Paul.
    It is not hard to look at current events and see what is happening now. God has given us up, and we are now in the terminal stages of social decay. The whole push to legalize "gay marriage" is an indication that He has given us up to our own sin and depravity. But it is important to note that it all began with secularization, with the refusal acknowledge God and honor Him. Religious apostasy inevitably leads to social disintegration. We are a society under divine judgment.
    But, you might ask, shouldn't God rather pity us than be angry with us? God certainly does pity us, but He is also angry with us. The reason is that we must take full responsibility for our sin and rebellion. We know that God exists. We know the difference between right and wrong. Yet we choose to do what is wrong. We "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18), and therefore are "without excuse" (v. 20). We in the United States are especially inexcusable: we had a rich Christian heritage and deliberately turned away from it. We can hardly plead ignorance. If God is angry with us, we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.
    It is hard to think of our country as being under divine judgment. But we must look at the situation soberly and realistically. The great need of the hour is repentance. We are rich in the things of this world, but poor in the things of heaven. We assume that God is pleased with us, and expects nothing more from us, but we are sadly mistaken. The truth is far different. We Evangelicals are a worldly and apathetic church in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. We need to start thinking about what God wants, and live accordingly. God wants us to have a meaningful relationship with Him – a relationship marked by faith, love and holiness.

Related blog posts:
What God Thinks of Us 
The Problem of Evil 

Raised Evangelical: Bob’s Story - V

We continue with our responses to the "Raised Evangelical" series by the atheist blogger Libby Anne at Love, Joy, Feminism.

 
Section 5: Purity
Question 1: What were you taught about physical and emotional purity, and also about modesty? What did your family believe about dating and courtship? How was sex education handled?
    At that point in time society as a whole still had a lingering Victorian attitude toward sex. It was never discussed in public, and there was no sex education in the schools. I think my parents gave me a booklet on the subject and told me to read it (it was by a Christian publisher, if I recall correctly). I do remember one visiting evangelist railing against "short shorts" and "necking and petting," and mixed bathing was problematical. Dating was considered normal -- you just weren't supposed to make out in the back seat of a car.

 
Question 2: How did the things you were taught about purity, modesty and dating/courthip work out for you in practice? Did you date, and at what age? Did you have sex before marriage, and if you did, did you experience guilt? In essence, explain how belief met practice and with what results.
    I didn't date until well after high school. I was always a little shy around girls, didn't have a driver's license, and wasn't too encouraged by the example of my parents' marriage. I did not have sex before marriage – you just have to be careful to avoid compromising situations.

 
Question 3: How do you feel about your family and church's purity, modesty, and dating/courtship teachings today? Do you think there are any parts of these teachings that still have value? How do you plan to handle these issues with your own children?
    I think that for persons of my generation one of the biggest changes that we have seen over the last fifty years is the collapse of public morality and with it the breakdown of the family structure. When I was growing up in the late '50's and early '60's we took a stable, two-parent family for granted. Kids knew their biological fathers – he was right there at the dinner table every night. Today these kinds of families have practically disappeared. When I worked on the U.S. Census in 2010 I was always surprised when I encountered a household in which everyone had the same last name. I think that this has left an emotional void in the hearts of the rising generation. President Obama has given us a compelling account of this in his autobiographical book Dreams from My Father.


 
Question 4: Do you feel that the purity, modesty and dating/courtship teachings you were raised with still have lasting impact on your life today? If so, how? What do you feel is the most detrimental effect of purity teachings?
    Frankly, the part of my upbringing that has had the most detrimental effect on my life is what I absorbed from Hollywood. The whole Hollywood concept of "falling in love" creates unrealistic expectations. And if I had taken the time to think about it, there was an obvious flaw in the message I was getting. If Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney couldn't make it work in real life, what made me think it would work for me? What took me many years to learn is that it takes character to make a marriage work, not sex appeal.
    Interestingly, there was a brief period when Feminists actually worked together with Evangelicals to fight pornography and the sex industry. At that point Feminists were concerned about women being treated as sex objects. But that didn't last very long, and now we are back to sexualizing girls at younger and younger ages.

 
Added note:
    Sex is something that was created by God, and is a beautiful expression of love when done in the context of a healthy marriage. When done for selfish reasons, however, it can be tremendously destructive.
    We have encountered a vivid example of this recently in Gen. David Petraeus. It seems that his conquests weren't confined to the battlefield. The femme fatale in this drama, Paula Broadwell, was caught sending threatening e-mails to another woman whom she suspected also had a romantic interest in "her man."
    Ms. Broadwell's predicament is a perfect illustration of the moral principle involved. We hope that she is struck by the anomaly of her situation. All of the parties involved (the general and the two "other women") are married. As long as Ms. Broadwell was the only paramour in the picture, she was apparently unconcerned about the sanctity of marriage vows. But when she began to fear that "her man" might be getting involved with yet another woman, this one even younger and more attractive looking than herself, she was overcome with jealousy. The shoe didn't fit so well on the other foot.
    Ms. Broadwell has now experienced firsthand the emotional impact of infidelity, and can see, we hope, the unspeakable harm that she has done to the general's wife, Holly Petraeus. A distinguished career has been ruined, the CIA director left himself vulnerable to blackmail, and three marriages are under stress. Ms. Broadwell is the home wrecker par excellence.
    Because marriage involves such an intimate physical and emotional bond, infidelity is bound to be devastating. Adultery is one of the cruelest things that one can do to one's spouse. It is an assault on one's self esteem, destroys trust, and rips families apart. Anything that tends to undermine marriage or cheapen or degrade sex (including immodest dress in public) is to be totally abhorred. "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4; NKJV).

 

Raised Evangelical: Bob’s Story - III

Section 3: Gender and Family
Question 1: What did your church teach about gender roles, the family, and marriage?

 
    For the most part these were issues that I can recollect. This was before the "Sexual Revolution" and the Women's Lib movement. We lived in a middle class, suburban community in which the two parent family was the norm. It was more or less taken as a matter of course that the husband was the "Head of the House" and that mom stayed home and took care of the kids. Thus our church's beliefs on the subject weren't noticeably different from the thinking of the rest of society, and didn't receive a whole lot of attention.

 
Question 2: Describe your parents' marriage: was it complementarian (i.e. "soft" patriarchy) or more openly patriarchal, or in practice egalitarian? Did your family or church use any of these terms?

 
    I don't think that my family or church even ever heard of any of those terms. If you were to ask most women at the time, they probably would have said that the husband was the head of the household, but often what really went on in the family was another story. My mother had her issues – let's just say that she could be difficult to get along with. I think that in actual practice we operated on the principle that "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

 
Question 3: In what ways were boys and girls in your family expected to dress or act differently from each other? Were there certain things it was appropriate for girls to do but not boys, and vice versa?
Question 4: In what ways were girls and your family expected to be stay at home mothers or to hold jobs? Did your mother work, and if so, how was that viewed by your family and church?

 
    I think that it was generally assumed in society at the time that men and women were different from each other and should be treated differently. The expectation was that when girls grew up they would get married, have children, and stay at home to take care of them. Day care centers were unheard of. Why would you pay someone else to raise your own children for you?
    Child rearing was aimed at preparing boys and girls for their future roles as husbands and wives. The gender roles were reinforced through a formal code of etiquette. Men were expected to show deference to women, to respect them, and to treat them gently. To that end boys were taught to hold doors open for girls and to help them into their seats. In high school boys were required to take shop classes and girls home ec.
    There was also a real difference in the way that boys and girls were treated. Boys were expected to be tough and "take it like a man," while girls were consoled when they cried.

 
Added Note:

 
    Much has been said in recent times about the alleged "misogyny" of the Bible. It must be frankly admitted on any honest reading of the Bible (which is the way that the Bible should be read) that the Bible definitely assigns a subordinate role to women in the family and the church. This is probably the major reason why many American women today either object to a literal reading of the text, or reject the Bible altogether.
    Is the Bible wrong on this issue? By whose standard? Where does that standard come from? The contemporary standards of modern society? The problem here is that the atheist has no objective standard by which to judge anyone's beliefs or behavior, because an atheist will not admit any moral absolutes. But who is the judge, anyway? In the end will the Almighty give a hoot about what American feminists think? And if the so-called "evangelical feminists" resort to a contorted exegisis to eliminate the patriarchalism of the Bible, aren't they picking and choosing what they wish to belief? Aren't they in fact chasing a God Who in the final analysis is merely a figment of their own imaginations? Doesn't this give credence to the charge of atheists that religion is all make-believe?
    But more to the point, subjection to lawful authority is not "oppression." Several different New Testament passages discuss a wide variety of relationships that involve the exercise of authority by one person over another: husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, rulers and subjects. The Bible never questions the legitimacy of any of these relationships per se. In fact, Paul even goes so far as to call the civil magistrate "God's minister to you for good" (Rom. 13:4; NKJV). And this was written at a time when Nero was the Roman Emperor! The plain fact of the matter is that human society cannot function without such hierarchical relationships, and so we are instructed in Scripture to "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake . . ." (I Pet. 2:13).
    Rather than challenge the legitimacy of such relationships the Bible instructs us on how to treat each other within the context of these authority structures. In general, persons in authority are to treat their subordinates with justice and humanity, and the subordinates are to honor and respect those in authority over them.
    The apostle Paul gives us a beautiful picture of the ideal of Christian marriage. He compares the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and the church. Is it an egalitarian relationship? Obviously not. Is husband free to mistreat and abuse his wife any way he pleases? "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Eph. 5:25).
    The underlying principle here is Christian love, expressed in humility, patience and a willingness to serve others. Paul enjoins believers of both genders to "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3,4). Christianity and Feminism are operating on diametrically opposed value systems.